And seriously, who farking cares? I am a straight male, and though i don't understand gay men, i have nothing against them. They are humans, and have the same right to happiness, marriage, the exact same things that hetro couples do. It affects my life not one iota if a man marries a man in my state, or a woman to a woman. I don't know them, and it has 0-affect on my life at all. Why should i give i shiat? I don't. And even if i DID know them, i still wouldn't care. They don't give a fark about my life, or how i choose to lead it..why should it be my business what they do with theirs? Its not. Mind you own business people, and we will all get along great.

unyon:Like the one line in the article, you've made the error that gender=sex.

Are you one of those people who also gets upset when a reporter doesn't get the exact model number of a gun right when reporting on a mass shooting? Yes, gender and sex can be different but for most of society and the law, there's no difference.

As for a sex/gender neutral singular pronoun, extending the use of 'their' in include singular situations seems to be where we are headed rather than creating a new word.

I really don't get the whole opposition to gay marriage thing. Marriage has always been about property. Its never been about love or procreation or any of that horseshiat. So why are religious people, who follow the Bible, that has the most cynical view on marriage ever written claim that marriage is about anything regarding heterosexual love?

Mugato:I really don't get the whole opposition to gay marriage thing. Marriage has always been about property. Its never been about love or procreation or any of that horseshiat. So why are religious people, who follow the Bible, that has the most cynical view on marriage ever written claim that marriage is about anything regarding heterosexual love?

the opposition is about hate and not sharingthe opposition hates the gays (look at their mantra, hate the sin, not the sinner. why would you need that if there wasnt hate for the sinner to start with?)the opposition hates sharing. if the gays get married, the gay spouse will get free stuff!! and the couple will get a TAX break just like us NORMAL people!!

roc6783:cynicalminion: my cynical side was the part that thought that "it obtains the consent of its parent or guardian" would in fact be HILARIOUS if it showed up in legislation.

It obtains the consent, then it puts the lotion on its skin.

this is kind of what i meant about the terminology. there are enough negative connotations to using the neuter singular pronoun in english, but we do have one, and it (no pun intended) led to the "he-shes" and other terms that gave alot of the transgender spectrum of folks out there alot of hardship. but to be fair, a cactus would not be able to provide the consent of its parent or guardian, and thus would make MARRIAGE to it not an option. take it home and molest it on your own time, sparky.

Mugato:I really don't get the whole opposition to gay marriage thing. Marriage has always been about property. Its never been about love or procreation or any of that horseshiat. So why are religious people, who follow the Bible, that has the most cynical view on marriage ever written claim that marriage is about anything regarding heterosexual love?

Its because it was a way to define women as property of their male husbands. Thats what they mean by "the sanctity of marriage." The god-given right to own your woman and do as you please with her.

tulax:AG is a dingleberry. He may think the one man, one woman law is unconstitutional (I do, too) but he needs to defend it. The best way to get it overturned is to fight it up to the NMSC and let them take a crack at it. If he won't defend it, the issue won't get decided for years, and then there is the risk that all of the couples that took advantage of this "gap" get their lives shredded apart.

WTF are you blathering about?

New Mexico DOES NOT HAVE a one man, one woman law. They never passed one.

And the current AG is actively taking the position that it's unconstitutional for marriage equality rights to be denied given the law.

tulax:AG is a dingleberry. He may think the one man, one woman law is unconstitutional (I do, too) but he needs to defend it. The best way to get it overturned is to fight it up to the NMSC and let them take a crack at it. If he won't defend it, the issue won't get decided for years, and then there is the risk that all of the couples that took advantage of this "gap" get their lives shredded apart.

That's not true.

Courts use thingamajigs called precedent to figure out WAT DO. Since a bunch of other courts including SCOTUS have said "no, stop it, no1curr", then any laws that try to force a "1 peen + 1 vag for Jeebus" shackaround are unlawful.

The AG knows it's a waste o' cash and time. He's got other things to do, like dress up like Batman and fight crime.

Bit'O'Gristle:And seriously, who farking cares? I am a straight male, and though i don't understand gay men, i have nothing against them. They are humans, and have the same right to happiness, marriage, the exact same things that hetro couples do. It affects my life not one iota if a man marries a man in my state, or a woman to a woman. I don't know them, and it has 0-affect on my life at all. Why should i give i shiat? I don't. And even if i DID know them, i still wouldn't care. They don't give a fark about my life, or how i choose to lead it..why should it be my business what they do with theirs? Its not. Mind you own business people, and we will all get along great.

/My 2 cents.

it's the same impulse that leads to old men patrolling their neighborhoods and turning neighbors into the HOA as soon as a blade of grass is out of place

Re the comment, above, that English doesn't have a neuter pronoun, that may be true now, but the original Saxon did: "man" and "men." The sex was specified by a prefix: "wo" for female and "were" for male.

So, if we wanted to, we could revert to that usage, and all male types would become, ta da: weremen.

Of course, all the werewolves would just be "male wolves," but that may not be too much of a problem.

That reversion would also correct any sex bias in any law not specifically restricted to apply to women. And, of course, women - as a downtrodden majority - deserve special treatment, eh?

cynicalminion:exick: Theaetetus: Interestingly, the only place where gender shows up in the statutes is regarding minors, specifying that no person under age can marry unless "he" obtains the consent of "his" parent or guardian.

If it does say "no person", then I find that acceptable. English doesn't have a neuter singular pronoun, so we have to make do with what we have.

well, technically, we do. would be pretty hilarious if wordings got changed to "its". but i think that probably has too much history of negative usage with regards to trans* folk.

The word 'they' is also perfectly serviceable in that regard without resorting to 'its' or creating new pronouns.

EngineerAU:unyon: Like the one line in the article, you've made the error that gender=sex.

Are you one of those people who also gets upset when a reporter doesn't get the exact model number of a gun right when reporting on a mass shooting? Yes, gender and sex can be different but for most of society and the law, there's no difference.

As for a sex/gender neutral singular pronoun, extending the use of 'their' in include singular situations seems to be where we are headed rather than creating a new word.

If by "the way we are headed", you mean in near-universal use since before Shakespeare, then yes, we may be headed that way.

Theaetetus:Interestingly, the only place where gender shows up in the statutes is regarding minors, specifying that no person under age can marry unless "he" obtains the consent of "his" parent or guardian.

If it does say "no person", then I find that acceptable. English doesn't have a neuter singular pronoun, so we have to make do with what we have.

OK, so what I got from that is some counties are in court try to get it approved, the AG said it is not expressly forbidden or approved let's have the court decide, and one county said, Y'all are taking too long, we'll just start issuing them.